Carl B. Smith II, PhD, is currently, since 1998, the Associate Professor of History and
Religion at Palm BeachAtlanticUniversity, where he has also served as Dean of Campus
Ministries and Associate Dean of the School of Ministry. Between 1989 and 98 he served as
pastor for Fairhaven Community Church in Fairhaven, OH, and between 1985 and 89
he was the Associate Professor of Biblical Studies for Baptist Bible College
East in Boston, MA.

He received his PhD in 2001 from
MiamiUniversity
in Ohio. This book is based on his doctoral dissertation, which was originally
entitled: "'No Longer Jews:' Gnostic
Origins and the Jewish Revolt Under Trajan (115-17 CE)" His advisor
was Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Senior Professor of History. He received his Master’s
Degree in 1991 from the same University under the same advisor, with his thesis
addressing "Mark the Evangelist and His Relationship to Alexandrian
Christianity in Biblical, Historical, and Traditional Literature". Dr.
Smith also holds a Masters of Divinity degree from Temple Baptist Theological
Seminary, Chattanooga, TN
(1983), and a BA in Biblical Studies from TennesseeTempleUniversity
in Chattanooga (1979). He is an
active member of the Evangelical Theological Society,
the Institute of Biblical
Research, and
the Society of Biblical Literature.

His other publications of note include: Review of Joseph Fitzmyer, “Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea
Scrolls” (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), in Near East Archaeological
Society Bulletin 39-40 (1995): 123-24; and Review of Michael A. Williams “Rethinking "Gnosticism": An
Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category”(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), in Journal of Early
Christian Studies 6.4 (1998), 684-85.

Hendrickson Publishers describes
itself as a service that “seeks to meet the publication needs of the people of
God and the religious studies academic community worldwide by publishing
outstanding reference, academic, and pastoral books at a reasonable price. Our
academic books include works on the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew language, ancient
Near Eastern studies and archaeology, New Testament and Greek language, biblical
theology, Judaism, patristics, church history, historical theology, practical
theology, and religion and culture.”

Introduction

The
introduction is an imperative segment to review. Here the author outlines the
intention of the work marked by delineation of presentation format. As a
background;

He begins by citing
the importance of the Nag Hammadi codices versus prior dependency on the
virtual exclusivity maintained in the polemic writings of early church
fathers

He summarizes a
“narrower and more useful” understanding of the most definitive elements
of Gnostic faith as a systematic philosophy of anti-cosmic dualism
(material as evil versus spiritual as good)

He points out the
presence of a basic belief of ethical dualism (light vs. darkness
generally accepted in its broadest context) was common in the ancient
world religions of Iran and Palestine, and notes that
Gnosticism departs from Platonic systems due to its extreme adherence to
dualistic understanding.

As
a beginning platform, the author outlines three issues he defines as being
critical in the search for Gnostic origins:

1)The religious and intellectual context out of which Gnosticism emerged

2)Its primary geographical setting; and

3)The chronology of its development

He cites that despite
varied arguments for the intellectual and religious roots of Gnosticism, “The
number of historians who identify the Judaism of late antiquity as the primary
soil out of which Gnosticism grew is increasing.”[1]

Following this statement,
he cites some of the stronger opposing viewpoints to this theory, such as those
arguing for Egypt as a possible point of
origin (page 3), which are complemented by his simple assessments of the
weaknesses of those specific arguments.

On page three he then cites
Robert Grant’s “bold” 1959 hypothesis that Gnosticism arose as an intellectual
and religious crisis within Judaism, specifically in conjunction with the first
Jewish revolt in Judea between 66-74 C.E., a view which Grant would later abandon. A revisit
to Grant’s hypothesis in 1983 by Edwin Yamauchi in his work Pre-Christian Gnosticism offered a
modification of Grant’s theory by asserting that the Bar Kokhba Revolt of
132-135 C.E. marked “the end of Jewish messianic speculations and the context
out of which Gnosticism grew.”[2]

It should here be noted that,
when reviewing the author’s curriculum vitae, I learned that Yamauchi was Carl
Smith’s academic advisor for both his Masters Thesis and Doctoral dissertation
on this material.

The author, then, is
offering in this work a challenge to his own advisor’s work by suggesting that,
based on evidence of the rise of Gnosticism in the Jewish intellectual centers
of North Africa – which he describes as “one of the largest and most
intellectually active and religiously diverse of the Diaspora”[3]
– that Gnosticism originated out of a lesser known revolt originating in
Cyrenaica and Egypt in 115-117 C.E. during the reign of Trajan.

The author admits that such
an assertion is no “smoking gun”, and that a specific conclusion is difficult
to determine, but, adds: “the clear historical chronology of teachers, writers,
and conceptions certainly supports this thesis.”[4]
This latter evidence is specifically what the author delivers.

The
introduction also features the author’s own summary assessment of each chapter.
In the section below, I will quote the author’s summary and follow by offering
my assessment as to whether or not his stated goal is successfully achieved.

Chapter 1: Definitions of
Gnosticism and Theories of Gnostic Origins

Dr. Smith: “The first
chapter of this book presents a
definition of the Gnostic religion and an overview of the various theories of
Gnostic origins, outlining the major proponents, merits and weaknesses of
each.”

I found this chapter to be
extraordinarily informative in its “no frills” directness and overall
objectivity to presenting every possible known perspective (to me) on
Gnosticism, which he explains through strategic use of scholarly sources. He
offers concise, conclusive descriptions, hallmarks, and the specific philosophical
schools of Gnosticism that I would find useful as a quick summary reference
point on, for example, Iraneus’ delineation of heretics from Simon Magus to
Saturninus (pg.20), which is only further accented by the views of various
scholars on such a topic. The footnotes also offer more information.

As an example of inclusion
of brief critiques of the work of other scholars, on page 26 he points out
weaknesses in the work of Kurt Rudolph, such as Rudolph’s insistence on Eastern
origins of Gnostic dualistic philosophy while evidence reveals an ethical
dualism in 1st Century Judaism, and particularly in Qumran.

Chapter 2: Gnostic Origins:
Jewish Social and Political Crisis

Dr. Smith: “The second chapter presents in fuller
detail the theories that define Gnosticism as rising out of the diverse crises
experienced by the Jewish people during this time period, including
socioeconomic, political, and religious factors.”

This chapter takes an in
depth look at some of the contextual arguments referenced in both the
Introduction and Chapter One, and is broken into specific, encapsulated
summaries of the work and hypothesis of acknowledged scholars in Gnostic
studies which are specifically relative to the dissertation presented. The
author brilliantly defines the strengths and weaknesses in each case. Featured
is the work of numerous scholars addressed in our own seminar, including:
Douglas Parrott, Kurt Rudolph, Robert Grant, Edwin Yamauchi, Stephen Wilson,
Alan Segal, Birger Pearson and Henry Green.

Again, an excellent
reference source for a summarization of the work of each. I particularly
enjoyed this chapter for this reason.

Chapter 3: The Jewish
Revolt under Trajan: A Historical Reconstruction and its Implications

Dr. Smith: “A historical reconstruction of the
Jewish revolt under Trajan is the focus of the third chapter. Particular
emphasis is given to the forces that caused the revolt, with special attention
granted to the socioeconomic and political situation of the Jews of North
Africa, especially in relation to the native, Greek, and Roman populations. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the devastating consequences of the revolt
for the various parties involved.”

Relying on the work of
historians from antiquity as well as that of modern scholars, the author moves
through a timeline accented by brief details of the regional socioeconomic and
political climate. Not a word is wasted nor a footnote or reference unused to
drive the reader through a brilliant summarization of what otherwise would likely
require volumes of material to find even the shortest passages and references.
Such an example is his citation of Corpus
papyrorum judaicarum as source of the earliest datable reference to the
revolt between Romans and Jews in Egypt in 115 C.E.[5]
CPJ[6]
contains the papyrus of an edict written by the Roman prefect in Egypt at the time, in which a
small segment makes reference to a skirmish. The author deduces this as the
advent of what evolved into full-fledged revolt. Other papyri and historical
sources are cited throughout.

The chapter paints a vivid
picture of the situation and climate with information I personally found
illuminating and successfully offers a compelling argument for the author’s
primary thesis.

Dr. Smith: “The fourth chapter sets forth the
essential thesis and primary evidences of the book. The chapter closely
examines the theological systems of the first individuals identified by the
early church fathers as Gnostics, evaluating especially their dualistic
tendencies and attitudes toward Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and, to a
lesser extent, Middle Platonism were seeking self-understanding in this period
of religious ferment. Individuals within each of these movements were defining
themselves in opposition to others. Determining precisely when a polemic
against Gnostic conceptions of dualism appears is significant in determining
its point of origin. What is discovered is that anti-Judaism was becoming progressively
more pronounced, but a rejection of the Jewish God or his creative work was not
a point of discussion prior to the 120s C.E.”

Thus is an extremely
important segment of the book, and needs to be discussed in context with the
next chapter. See notes on this under next heading.

Chapter 5: Sethian
Gnosticism, the Geography of Heresy, and a Proposal for Gnostic Origins

Dr. Smith: “The fifth chapter continues with
further evidences, particularly examining what is often posited as the earliest
Gnostic system: Sethian Gnosticism. What is found is that Sethianism itself is
at the earliest a second-century development, and one that has close
connections to Egypt. This section is followed
by a survey of the geography of the Gnostic heresy, ending with an examination
of the religious context of Egypt, particularly Judaism and
Christianity, just prior to the Jewish revolt of that region. The chapter ends
with several scenarios regarding “how it might have happened,” suggesting that
Gnosticism was birthed in the aftermath of the revolt.”

Chapters four and five
serve a sumptuous and detailed listing of chronological, geographical,
historical and religious contexts offered as hard evidence for the overall
argument. Like the preceding chapters, these two segments are so densely packed
with details and source references that it required numerous rereads by myself.
The scenarios offered are thought provoking, and the author openly acknowledges
the flaws in his assorted assertions. To challenge this information would
require extensive research by a novice, or a general survey by an established
scholar. This was made evident in the concluding remarks of the book’ s
introduction (review ‘Introduction’ notes on Page 3 of this report).

Bibliography; End notes

The work is followed by an extensive Bibliography
of papers and books that is 34 pages long! This is followed by a detailed Index
of Modern Authors, within which our illustrious Dr. Robert Kraft is referenced four times.

A generous and thorough Subject Index follows,
with a concluding segment – Index of Ancient Sources, which is a
wonderful addition for research purposes, citing only references to subject
matter pertinent to Gnostic studies and history, and specifically in the
context of the author’s stated goal in the book. I want to highlight this particular feature of the book for its
uniqueness. Included here are Indexes of correlating passages from the Old
and New Testaments, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old and New Testaments,
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Codices, Ancient Greek and Latin Works as
well as Apostolic and Church Fathers, Hermetic Literature, a section called
“Papyrus Collections” and “Various Papyri” which includes the Berlin Coptic
Codex, and finally “Other Sources”.

Summary remarks

One of my concerns with the work of any author whose
work in which I elect to engage is to determine if a biased agenda is present.
By acquainting myself with the author’s curriculum vitae I especially noted his
impressive academic credentials and his background as Pastor of a Baptist
Christian congregation. What impressed me most of all was an evident lack of
bias of any kind. I found the work to offer a comprehensive summary of almost
all aspects pertinent to an in-depth study of Gnosticism, highlighted by
painstakingly thorough use of bibliographic references. It is clearly
demonstrative of an exemplary scholarly grasp gained only through years of
research.

At numerous points throughout the book I noted the
author approaching topics much in the same manner as has Dr. Kraft has led us in
our own seminar, such as illustrated in the following, as extracted from the
text:

“The term “Jew” is found twice in The Gospel of Philip [with one ‘L’!], [while the plural] appears
three times in three codices [which are designated in footnotes], “Hebrew” is
found five times in three tractates [also designated in footnotes], and
“Hebrews” is found four times in three texts [designated in footnotes].”[7]

This specific approach is repeated throughout the
book, further evidencing the author’s detail oriented presentation. Such detail
easily distinguishes the work from one that might appeal to the casual reader.
From a scholarly perspective the book may be appreciated as a true service to
Gnostic studies as well as religious and biblical studies in that any potential
area of negligence simply doesn’t exist in this volume. The author has created
an admirable text worthy of inclusion in the syllabus of any University survey
course on the historical background of Gnosticism. Indeed the work struck me as
the embodiment of a course in itself, and a most informative and excellent
course at that. A worthy addition to any personal library, and certainly for a
University.

Contentions

While I continue to retain some hesitance to wholeheartedly
embracing the author’s explication, I have no ground to presently stand on to
argue otherwise. Personally I don’t agree with the author’s core summary that
Gnosticism grew out of a political skirmish in the early 2nd century
as too many allusions to other sources and influences from regional religious
traditions continue to “pop-up” with ongoing research. Such instances arose in
this week’s (03/15/05) reading assignment ie: in The Apocryphon of John, in
sections 15 through 20, the author of AoJ details anthropomorphized angelic
creative powers that correspond strikingly to Vedic and later Tantric
cosmology, and in section 16, verse 10, a specific reference to ‘the book of
Zoroaster” as an authoritative source for deepened understanding is made, thus
asserting an earlier influence.

But these are my personal considerations. While I find
it impossible to overlook such correlations, the question about an accurate
definition for Gnosticism is raised, which has been an ongoing discussion since
the Messina Colloquium of 1966. To the author’s credit, he cites this on the
very first page of this work by saying: “Much of the difficulty with
determining the origins of Gnosticism centers on the problem of definition.”[8] By
isolating the context of this dissertation within Jewish history, entertaining
possible connections outside of geographic areas relative to the Jewish
Diaspora are rendered extraneous.

To conclude, as someone new to the specific nuances relative
to Gnostic studies and with regard to the historical data offered as foundation
for the author’s argument, I found myself presently unqualified to take any
opposing or critical stance. Any contention to this work would clearly be best
served by contemporary scholars in the field of Gnostic studies.